Ah, the promise of a new year – and a new Congress. With corruption a major concern of voters in the most recent elections, new Democratic leaders are expected to propose major lobbying and ethics reforms as one of their first acts of office. Missing from the discussion, however, is a concrete proposal to make full public financing of congressional elections a major part of the reforms.
This is a subject about which Colorado’s delegation has also been sadly silent.
While ethics reforms are sorely needed, to create deeper change in Washington, there needs to be a fundamental change in the way elections are financed, a system in which candidates can bypass the pay-for-play politics that now dominates our elections.
After all, at the core of the scandals costing people their elections in November was the pervasive problem of money in politics. Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff used campaign contributions to help curry favor for his clients; in doing so, he acted as thousands of Washington lobbyists do every day. The scandal engulfing former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, involved accusations that he illegally laundered corporate campaign contributions.
Colorado certainly knows about the need to clean up scandals. Failed Republican gubernatorial candidate and possible 2008 Senate candidate Bob Beauprez earned the dubious distinction of being one of the three lawmakers closest to DeLay, according to The DeLay Rankings (campaignmoney.org/delayspocket). Soon-to-be-retired Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., found out what it was like to tangle with the DeLay machine when he was summarily removed as chairman of the House ethics committee after rebuking the then-majority leader three times on ethics charges.
The 2006 elections cost some $2.8 billion, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The average cost of winning a House seat was $966,000, based on pre-election finance reports, a relative bargain compared to the cost of a Senate seat, which cost $7.8 million. That money has to come from somewhere, and the folks who have it to give away look more like Abramoff than the rest of America. The top contributing ZIP code was 10021, on Manhattan’s tony Upper East Side.
Once candidates win their races, their campaign donors expect policy paybacks in return for their generous contributions. Whether they’re asking for a statement to be inserted into the Congressional Record on behalf of a client or a vote on major legislation affecting prescription drug coverage or an environmental law, the public is more often than not the loser.
Publicly financed elections, also known as “clean elections” in many of the seven states and two municipalities that have approved it, change the dynamic of how elections are run. Candidates collect an established number of small contributions – typically $5 – from supporters. They then qualify for a public grant to run their campaigns, providing they also agree to take no more private money and abide by strict spending limits.
If they are running against privately funded candidates who outspend them, they can qualify for additional public funding, up to a limit. The same goes if they are faced with outside advertising opposing them.
Clean elections systems are also performing well in the states where there are established programs in place. More than 200 officials will take office in January who used clean elections to run their races in Arizona, Maine and North Carolina. Other states and cities that have clean elections systems are Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore.
There is a strong and growing force in Congress for full public financing of elections: 108 members of the 110th Congress have either already signed the Voters First Pledge in support of full public financing of elections along with major lobbying reforms or have been co-sponsors of legislation to enact clean elections campaign reform. Unfortunately, none of them hail from Colorado.
In the new Congress, lawmakers in the House and the Senate are expected to introduce clean elections legislation. Colorado’s delegation to Washington should move swiftly to join other sponsors to support these efforts. Meanwhile, it is high time our legislators in our state Capitol join our neighbors in Arizona and other states and bring clean elections to Colorado state races as well.
Clean elections is a practical, proven reform that makes elections about voters, not special-interest donors. Coloradans deserve no less.
Public Campaign is a group that works to reduce the role of special-interest money in American politics.
Nancy Watzman is a research and investigative projects director for Public Campaign
